DOCSLIB.ORG

Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture and Other Crimes Under International Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture and Other Crimes Under International Law Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and other crimes under international law The urgent need to strengthen universal jurisdiction legislation and to enforce it vigorously July 2008 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 II. INCLUSION OF CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DEFENCES IN NATIONAL LAW ..................................................................... 5 A. Universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes in a non-international conflict ........................6 B. Universal jurisdiction over genocide ...........................................................................................................................................8 C. The problem of command and superior responsibility for international crimes under international law ...............9 D. Universal jurisdiction over torture – impermissible defences.......................................................................................... 12 III. THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM TO DEFINE CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AS CRIMES FROM THE MOMENT THEY WERE RECOGNISED AS SUCH............................. 13 IV. THE FLAWED SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS................................................ 14 A. The need for an effective specialised investigation and prosecution unit ...................................................................... 14 V. POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSECUTING, EXTRADITING AND PROVIDING MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................... 17 A. Political official’s consent required to prosecute.................................................................................................................. 17 B. Home Secretary’s consent to extradite .................................................................................................................................. 17 C. Ineffective mutual assistance ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 VI. THE NEED FOR DEPORTATIONS AND OTHER IMMIGRATION ‘REMEDIES’ TO SUPPORT, NOT SUPPLANT, INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS............................................................ 19 VII. PROVIDE ACCESS TO A CIVIL REMEDY ........................................................................................ 20 Foreword A series of cases over the past decade in which persons in the United Kingdom suspected of the worst crimes have escaped investigation and prosecution, as well as civil accountability, has demonstrated the urgent need for the United Kingdom to strengthen its universal jurisdiction legislation and then to enforce it vigorously. This paper was drafted by Carla Ferstman of REDRESS and Daniel Machover of Hickman & Rose and has the support of a range of human rights NGOs and individuals, including Amnesty International , FIDH , Human Rights Watch , Justice and REDRESS . We are grateful for the assistance of Stephanie Koury and Sarah Hibbin of the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East at the SOAS School of Law . The paper discusses the relevant framework of international law, the current legislation and its inadequacies and the ineffective enforcement of this legislation. It then makes a series of urgent recommendations for reforming current legislation and methods of enforcement. 2 I. Introduction International law permits, and at times requires, states to investigate and, if there is sufficient admissible evidence, to prosecute certain crimes under international law based on universal jurisdiction, regardless of where those crimes were committed, regardless of the nationality or location of the suspect or the victims and irrespective of any specific connection to the prosecuting state. One of the justifications for this rule of international law is that the crimes are crimes against the international community as a whole and, as such, each member of the international community has an inherent interest and responsibility to ensure that perpetrators of such crimes do not evade justice or fail to provide reparations to the victims and their families. The principle is not a new or novel concept in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. For more than two centuries, states have provided for universal jurisdiction over ordinary crimes in their penal codes without objections from other states. 1 In addition, it has long been recognised by customary international law that states may exercise universal jurisdiction over piracy, slavery, slave trading, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions. Furthermore, in the last half-century, a steadily increasing number of treaties have required parties to exercise universal jurisdiction (i.e. when states must try or extradite for trial those suspects found in territory subject to their jurisdiction) over such serious international crimes as grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, torture, enforced disappearances and “terrorist” offences, including hijacking aircraft. In addition, international law permits and, in some cases, requires, states to exercise universal civil jurisdiction over conduct that is criminal or tortuous under international law. As discussed below in Section VII, states have exercised such jurisdiction both in civil litigation and in civil claims filed as part of criminal proceedings, whether those proceedings were instituted by the state or by victims. The application of universal jurisdiction by all countries is vital to ending impunity for the most serious crimes under international law – to ensure that no perpetrator escapes justice or fails to provide reparations to victims and their families, and that the international community registers its contempt for such crimes, crimes which affect all. The application of universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom is most associated with the landmark hearings concerning the requests by Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland for extradition of former Chilean President, Augusto Pinochet, with respect to charges of torture. There were prosecutions immediately after the Second World War under the Royal Warrant of 1945 for war crimes. 2 Accordingly, British military courts operating as part of the allied military tribunals under Control Council Law (CCL) N°10, of 20 December 1945, applied the principle of universal jurisdiction. 3 There were also investigations involving war crimes committed during the 1 Harvard Research in International Law, 29 Am. J. Int’l L. Supp. 435, 636 (1935). 2 A Royal Warrant, issued on 14 June 1945 at the end of the Second World War in Europe, authorized British military courts to exercise jurisdiction over violations of the laws and customs of war. The 1958 British Manual of Military Law expressly states that ''British Military Courts have jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom over war crimes committed . by . persons of any nationality…It is not necessary that the victim of the war crime should be a British subject.'' Manual of Military Law , III (1958), para. 637. The Manual adds that ''The courts, whether military or civil, of neutral States may also exercise jurisdiction in respect of war crimes. This jurisdiction is independent of any agreement made between neutral and belligerent States. War Crimes are crimes ex jure gentium [under international law] and are thus triable by the courts of all States.'' Ibid. 3 In the Almelo case, a British military court sitting in the Netherlands based its jurisdiction over German defendants accused of killing a Dutch civilian in part on universal jurisdiction. According to the law report of the case, the military court explained that ''under the general doctrine called Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes, every independent state has in International Law jurisdiction to punish pirates and war criminals in its custody regardless of the nationality of the victim or the place where the offence was 3 Second World War under the 1991 War Crimes Act and prosecutions of two persons. 4 The first successful non-WWII prosecution in England and Wales was brought against Faryadi Zardad Sarwar, a mujahadeen military commander in Afghanistan, who was convicted of acts of torture and hostage-taking that had taken place in Afghanistan in the 1990s and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment.5 Other attempts have been made in the United Kingdom to arrest individuals accused of these crimes in recent years, 6 and allegations have been leveled against a range of additional suspects. Section II describes how United Kingdom legislation fails to provide universal jurisdiction over all crimes under international law and provides a broad defence which is impermissible under international law for torture committed abroad. Section III discusses how the United Kingdom has seriously restricted the temporal scope of jurisdiction over these crimes. Section IV analyzes the weaknesses in the practical arrangements for investigating and prosecuting these crimes. Section V identifies the political limitations on investigations, prosecutions, extraditions and mutual legal assistance with respect to crimes under international law. Section VI discusses the alternatives of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internacional De Derechos Civiles Y Políticos
    INTERNACIONAL Distr. DE DERECHOS GENERAL ~ CIVILES C OPR/C/l/Add.17 21 de septiembre de 1 9 7 7 Y POLÍTICOS ESPAÑOL Original: INGLES COMITE DE' DERECHOS HUMANOS Tercer período de sesiones EXAMEN DE LOS INFORMES PRESENTADOS POR LOS ESTADOS PARTES DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL ARTICULO 40 DEL PACTO Informes iniciales de los Estados Partes que deben presentarse en 1977 Adición REINO UNIDO DE GRAN BRETAÑA E IRLANDA DEL NORTE [.18 de agosto de 1 9 7 7 ] Introducción 1. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos no tiene por sí mismo fuerza de ley en el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte ni en los territorios dependientes de él. La obligación asumida en virtud del parrefo 2 del artículo 2, que deja a cada Parte Contratante la libertad de elegir la forma de hacer efectivos los derechos reconocidos en el Pacto, se cumple en el Reino Unido mediante salvaguardias ‘ de distintos tipos que se aplican en los varios sistemas jurídicos, independientemente: : del Pacto pero en plena concordancia con él. 2. ^ Las explicaciones que contiene el presente informe se limitan en general al sistema jurídico de Inglaterra y Gales. Las normas jurídicas de ese sistema corresponden a dos categorías principales : normas qtie figuran en la legislación y normas que se deducen de las decisiones de los tribunales con facultades decisorias. Las de esta última categoría se derivan, a su vez, de dos fuentes -en primer lugar, el "common law” propia­ mente dicho (es decir, las leyes y costumbres reconocidas judicialmente desde los primeros tiempos) y, en segundo lugar, la interpretación de las leyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF LEGISLATION AROUND THE WORLD – 2012 UPDATE Amnesty International Publications First published in October 2012 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2012 Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 A. The two annexes...........................................................................................................6 B. Definitions...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • The Pinochet Judgment: New Accountability for Old Dictators †
    463 THE PINOCHET JUDGMENT: NEW ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OLD DICTATORS † Sarah L Murphy * This article analyses the groundbreaking 1999 judgment of the House of Lords on the question of the extradition of Pinochet from the United Kingdom to Spain for crimes committed during his time as Head of State of Chile. It examines the two main components of the judgment: that Pinochet's status as former Head of State of Chile did not allow him to benefit from sovereign immunity for acts of torture committed during his reign; and that he could be extradited to Spain for acts of torture committed after 1989, when the United Kingdom codified its obligations under the Torture Convention. It supports the conclusion that the laws against torture override the immunity of former Heads of State, and suggests that the reasoning could be extended to apply to other crimes against humanity, and where the accused is an incumbent Head of State. On the question of extradition, it argues that the Law Lords had several avenues open under which Pinochet could have been extradited to face all counts of torture. It concludes with an analysis of the New Zealand legislation and case law on sovereign immunity, the prosecution of crimes against humanity, and extradition, and suggests several law reforms to bring New Zealand legislation in line with evolving international obligations to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. † This article was accepted for publication in 2000. In September 2000, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 was passed. The Act removes many of the hur dles that existed at the time of the Pinochet proceedings to prosecuting crimes against humanity in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Act 1991 Page 1
    War Crimes Act 1991 Page 1 War Crimes Act 1991 1991 CHAPTER 13 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty©s Stationery Office. An Act to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War; and for connected purposes. [9th May 1991] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen©s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by authority of the same, as follows:Ð 1.Ð Jurisdiction over certain war crimes. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, proceedings for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide may be brought against a person in the United Kingdom irrespective of his nationality at the time of the alleged offence if that offenceÐ (a) was committed during the period beginning with 1st September 1939 and ending with 5th June 1945 in a place which at the time was part of Germany or under German occupation; and (b) constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war. (2) No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought against any person unless he was on 8th March 1990, or has subsequently become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands. (3) No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, as the case may be, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Consents to Prosecution Consultation
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In this consultation paper we examine one of the procedural mechanisms used to control the prosecution process, namely the requirement in respect of certain offences of the consent of the Law Officers (the Attorney-General or the Solicitor- General) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”)1 as a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings. In preparing this paper, we have borne in mind the constitutional gravity of consent provisions – not only do they fetter the right of private prosecution, but also, by their nature, they impose an administrative burden on senior officials and cause an additional administrative delay within the criminal justice system. THE NEED FOR REVIEW 1.2 Although the use of consent provisions is not a recent development, their proliferation is. As we shall see in Part IV,2 although the first example is thought to date back to the early nineteenth century, it was not until the Second World War that consent provisions became widely used. We believe that the consents regime is a pressing and important subject for review. We hold this belief for a number of reasons. 1.3 First, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (“the Philips Commission”), under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips, noted that the wide-ranging list of Acts which included a consent provision suggested that “some of the restrictions ha[d] been arbitrarily imposed”;3 and in formulating proposals which eventually led to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Commission took the view that the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) provided the apposite moment for reviewing the consents regime and, noting that the DPP had said in evidence to the Commission that “the time was ripe for some rationalisation of the restrictions”,4 recommended that rationalisation should not be delayed.5 1.4 Second, notable former Law Officers have criticised the consents system.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911
    SECTION 2 OF THE PARLIAMENT ACT 1911 This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. References to Commons Standing Orders are to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Public Business of 1 May 2018 and the addenda up to 6 February 2019. References to Lords Standing Orders are to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business of 18 May 2016. References to Erskine May are to Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice (25th edition, 2019). Office of the Parliamentary Counsel 11 July 2019 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General . 1 Text of section 2. 1 Uses of section 2 . 2 Role of First Parliamentary Counsel . 3 CHAPTER 2 APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE PARLIAMENT ACT 1911 Key requirements . 4 Bills to which section 2(1) applies . 4 Sending up to Lords in first Session . 6 Rejection by Lords in first Session . 7 Same Bill in second Session. 7 Passing Commons in second Session . 10 Sending up to Lords in second Session . 11 Rejection by Lords in second Session . 11 Commons directions . 14 Royal Assent . 14 CHAPTER 3 SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS Commons timing and procedure . 16 Function of the procedure . 17 Form of suggested amendment . 19 Lords duty to consider. 19 Procedure in Lords . 19 CHAPTER 4 OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN THE SECOND SESSION Procedure motions in Commons . 21 Money Resolutions . 23 Queen’s and Prince’s Consent . 23 To and Fro (or “ping-pong”) . 23 APPENDIX Jackson case: implied restrictions under section 2(1) . 25 —i— CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General 1.1 The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were passed to restrict the power of veto of the House of Lords over legislation.1 1.2 Section 1 of the 1911 Act is about securing Royal Assent to Money Bills to which the Lords have not consented.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    MFK-Mendip Job ID: 10390BK-0187-8 7 - 735 Rev: 05-08-2004 PAGE: 1 TIME: 07:22 SIZE: 61,08 Area: JNLS OP: MF Universal Jurisdiction Clarifying the Basic Concept Roger O’Keefe* Abstract Academic analysis of the Arrest Warrant case in the International Court of Justice has tended to focus to date on the Court’s judgment on immunity. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the question of universal jurisdiction, as discussed in detail in most of the separate and dissenting opinions and declarations. The following article focuses less on the various judges’ conclusions as to the international lawfulness of universal jurisdiction than on their treatment of the basic concept. The article argues that this treatment is open to question, reflecting, as it does, both a conceptual conflation of states’ jurisdiction to prescribe their criminal law with the manner of that law’s enforcement and an inattention to crucial temporal considerations. As well as fostering dubious terminology, these factors lead some judges to an unsatisfying conclusion regarding the permissibility of the enforcement in absentia of universal jurisdiction, and cause others to underestimate the degree of state practice in favour of universal jurisdiction over crimes under general inter- national law. 1. Introduction The separate and dissenting opinions and declarations of the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Arrest Warrant1 invite discussion of what is meant by ‘universal jurisdiction’. This article suggests that the respective judges’ understanding of the concept is debatable, since underlying it is a tendency, when dealing with states’ criminal jurisdiction, to elide prescription and enforcement, as * University Lecturer and Deputy Director, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge; Fellow, Magdalene College, Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Remedies for Victims of “ International Crimes”
    Legal Remedies for Victims of “ International Crimes” Fostering an EU Approach To Extraterritorial Jurisdiction FINAL REPORT MARCH 2004 Realised with financial support from: Grotius II programme of the European Commission “[G]enocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must not go unpunished and [… ] their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at national level and by enhancing international cooperation.” Council Decision 2003/335/JHA, 8 May 2003 “The serious crimes within the jurisdiction of the [International Criminal] Court are of concern to all Member States, which are determined to cooperate for the prevention of those crimes and for putting an end to the impunity of the perpetrators thereof” Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP, 16 June 2003 “The [International Criminal Court’s] strategy of focussing on those who bear the greatest responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court will leave an impunity gap unless national authorities, the international community and the Court work together to ensure that all appropriate means for bringing other perpetrators to justice are used.” Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court – Office of the Prosecutor, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1 II. THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • João Bertola Franco De Gouveia
    10 INTRODUÇÃO Historicamente, tratando-se dos Estados, a matéria das imunidades é regida por regras costumeiras de direito internacional. O direito das imunidades foi, em seguida, enriquecido por algumas convenções. A primeira foi a convenção de Bruxelas de 1926 sobre as imunidades dos navios de Estado. Depois, surgiu a convenção de Basiléia de 1972 sobre as imunidades dos Estados, negociada sob a égide do Conselho da Europa. Posteriormente, diferentes Estados da common law, como os Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Canadá, e, ainda, a África do Sul, adotaram legislação interna sobre as imunidades. Inicialmente, a imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados era absoluta, evoluindo mais tarde para uma imunidade relativa, havendo algumas exceções em que não se aplicava a imunidade de jurisdição. Assim, as leis internas desses Estados previram exceções nos casos de lides trabalhistas ou de acidentes automobilísticos. O direito brasileiro, seguindo a tendência mundial, também adotou a imunidade relativa, a partir da Magna Carta de 1988, com uma nova interpretação do art.114, I da mesma, no caso de questões trabalhistas. Atualmente, no entanto, o direito das imunidades de jurisdição continua a evoluir, havendo doutrina e jurisprudência que sustentam a sua ausência no caso de violação dos direitos humanos. Dessa forma, o leading case seria o caso Pinochet, no qual a Câmara dos Lordes entendeu que Pinochet não teria imunidade de jurisdição perante a corte inglesa em função de atos funcionais violadores dos direitos humanos praticados durante o tempo em que foi presidente do Chile. Dessa maneira, dentre as exceções à imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados, poder-se-ia acrescentar uma nova exceção no caso de violação dos direitos humanos.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction in the European Union
    UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Country Studies For further information on this report, please contact THE REDRESS TRUST, at: 3rd Floor, 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ Tel: +44 (0)20 7793 1777 Fax: +44 (0)20 7793 1719 Registered Charity Number 1015787, A Limited Company in England Number 2274071 [email protected] (general correspondence) UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written by Ariana Pearlroth and edited by Carla Ferstman of REDRESS. We have relied heavily on the following sources in the preparation of the information in the report: the Universal Jurisdiction Website (http://www.universaljurisdiction.info); Amnesty International’s report “Universal Jurisdiction - the duty of states to enact and enforce legislation,” AI Index: IOR 53/002/2001, 1 September 2001 (http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/legal_memorandum); M.E.I. Brienen and E.H. Hoegen, Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems: The Implementation of Recommendation (85) 11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Dissertation, University of Tilburg (Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2000: Wolf Legal Productions (WLP)) (http://www.victimology.nl/onlpub/Brienenhoegen/BH.html); and REDRESS’ report, “Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: Criminal prosecutions in Europe since 1990 for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and genocide,” 30 June 1999 (http://www.redress.org/publications/UJEurope.pdf). The report has also benefited from country-specific information provided by a range of national human rights institutes and organisations, which was collected by REDRESS as part of a feasibility study for the Project on the approximation and/or harmonisation of standards at the EU level.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Powers Perspective on Pinochet, A
    A SEPARATION OF POWERS PERSPECTIVE ON PINOCHET Frank Sullivan, Jr.*, INTRODUCTION On October 16, 1998, the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, was in London undergoing medical treatment. He was arrested at the request of Spanish authorities who sought his extradition to Spain for trial on charges of human rights abuses (torture, murder, and hostage-taking) allegedly committed while he ruled Chile. Prior to any decision having been made by the U.K. government as to extradition, Pinochet himself sought a writ of habeas corpus from the U.K. courts. Pinochet, supported by Chile, argued in part that he was entitled to immunity as a former head of state under U.K. statutory law. Spain responded in part that under principles of international law, Pinochet was not entitled to the statutory immunity he claimed. On October 28, 1998, a three-judge divisional court held that he enjoyed immunity but refused to allow him to return to Chile pending appeal.' On November 25, 1998, the country's court of last resort, the Appellate Commit- tee of the House of Lords, reversed the divisional court and held that Pinochet was not immune.2 On December 17, 1998, however, the House of Lords reversed itself and vacated its first decision on grounds that one of the judges (Lord Hoffmann) who had participated in it had an impermissible conflict of * Justice, Indiana Supreme Court. LL.M., University of Virginia School of Law (2001); J.D., Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington (1982); A.B., Dartmouth College (1972). ** This article is based on a thesis submitted to fulfill a portion of the requirements of the University of Virginia Law School's LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED at STAGE 2]
    Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] CONTENTS Section PART 1 SENTENCING The Scottish Sentencing Council 3 The Scottish Sentencing Council 4 The Council’s objectives 5 Sentencing guidelines 6 Consultation on proposed sentencing guidelines 6A Approval of sentencing guidelines by High Court 7 Effect of sentencing guidelines 8 Ministers’ power to request that sentencing guidelines be prepared or reviewed 9 High Court’s power to require preparation or review of sentencing guidelines 9A Publication of High Court guideline judgements 10 Scottish Court Service to provide sentencing information to the Council 11 The Council’s power to provide information, advice etc. 12 Business plan 13 Annual report Community payback orders 14 Community payback orders Non-harassment orders 15 Non-harassment orders Short sentences 16 Short periods of detention 18 Amendments of Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 19 Early removal of certain short-term prisoners from the United Kingdom Other sentencing measures 20 Reports about supervised persons 20A Pre-sentencing reports about organisations 21 Extended sentences for certain sexual offences 22 Effect of probation and absolute discharge 23 Offences aggravated by racial or religious prejudice 24A Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions 24B Minimum sentence for having in a public place an article with a blade or point SP Bill 24A Session 3 (2010) ii Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill PART 2 CRIMINAL LAW Serious organised crime 25 Involvement in serious organised crime 26 Offences aggravated by connection with serious organised crime 27 Directing serious organised crime 28 Failure to report serious organised crime Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes 28A Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: UK residents 28B Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: retrospective application Articles banned in prison 29 Articles banned in prison Crossbows, knives etc.
    [Show full text]